[RP TownTalk] Change in Government
bob smith
sfmc68 at verizon.net
Wed Mar 9 15:32:41 UTC 2016
Councilman Thompson,
Thank you for your reply. This was not what I expected from you.
On 4 March, I asked two simple questions, with the hope of gaining some
understanding of this potential change in Town governance. You advised
you would answer MY questions in that exchange in more detail. You have
not done that in this response.
In this reply You are addressing Councilman Ebbler's comments and not my
questions of 4 March.
Thank you for the additional information but I do read in this response
that you accept this proposal as a done deal with your paragraph on the
Mayor's new status. This concerns me.
For a good while now, you have cited the fact of your diligent work on
this proposed legislation. There have been rumors about it. The draft
was presented before the town meeting and introduced.
Detail has been and still is missing.
I am focused on getting the information and opinions from everyone.
Please, Review my questions and comments and consider those. I would
like answers to the questions in order to understand this subject and as
much of the implications to the town as possible.
Respectfully,
Bob Smith
Ward 3
On 3/8/16 11:47 PM, Alan K. Thompson wrote:
> Dear Bob,
>
> I wanted to touch on a few of the points raised by Jonathan about this
> legislation, and see if that could help you come to a decision about
> your support for it.
>
> Before I do that, though, I need to answer your big question - why is
> this legislation needed? I'll answer you with another question (or
> several): why do we have a Director of Public Works? Why can't the
> mayor supervise the department? Why do we have a Police Chief? Can't
> the mayor supervise them too?
>
> The reason we have those department heads, as Mayor Archer stated in his
> Town Crier article this month, is that they have more time (because
> they are not trying to do those jobs at the same time as their "day"
> job) and more training, because they are professionals. As the demands
> from ever more complicated regulations (government and otherwise),
> personnel rules, etc., mount it becomes harder and harder for an
> ordinary town resident who has been elected to serve as mayor to meet
> those demands at the same time as holding down a job and meeting family
> obligations.
>
> It is definitely possible for the mayor to simply delegate many
> responsibilities to the Town Administrator (and other department heads),
> as I honestly think has been done at some level for the entire time I
> have been watching or participating in town government (more than 20
> years). I think it's a better idea to explicitly have those roles and
> responsibilities spelled out in our Charter so that there is a
> consistent policy of who is responsible for what as administrations and
> councils come and go. The proposed Charter amendments include these
> changes.
>
> Now to move to some of Jonathan's points.....
>
> His discussion of at-large election of council members, whether to have
> a mayor or not, and council/mayor salaries are all extremely important
> and difficult questions. When I was reading the charters of other
> municipalities, I noted that Greenbelt (which has the most pure version
> of a council-manager form of government of any I read) has at-large
> elections of council members, does not have direct election of a mayor,
> and (though I previously stated that I thought the council member who
> received the most votes served as mayor) the mayor is chosen by their
> council. Their city manager serves an indefinite term, and may only be
> removed for cause (though I think the cause doesn't have to be much). I
> considered going more in that direction but decided that at least for
> what I was submitting I would stay closer to our current form of
> government.
>
> I'm a little confused by his concern about the lack of an
> "employer-employee relationship" under the Council-Manager form of
> government; I'm hoping he will clarify that in his future, longer
> discussion.
>
> I'll focus first on a significant part of that relationship - getting
> fired. Under our current charter, only the mayor may initiate removal of
> the Town Administrator, but removal requires council approval. Under
> the new charter, the council as a whole must vote to remove the Town
> Manager, but that action can be initiated by /any/ council member.
> Either way, a majority of the council must vote to remove, and either
> way, if someone initiates removal, a smart town administrator/manager
> will begin looking for a new job.
>
> Similarly, the council currently establishes policy (through the budget
> and through resolutions and ordinances), and will continue to do so.
> The mayor currently interprets and prioritizes council policies. Under
> the proposed changes to a system with a Town Manager, the council may
> have to be more detailed in statements of policy, but the town manager
> can certainly informally or formally request clarification from the council.
>
> Finally, Jonathan stated that "you can call your Councilmember and/or
> the Mayor" to have an issue resolved. Under our current system, the Town
> Administrator responds to such requests from Town Council members (who
> are not her direct supervisor). This will still be possible under the
> new Council Manager form of government; the power of council members are
> enhanced over what exists now.
>
> Regarding the mayor's new status as a full member of the council, the
> major difference is that he or she can vote on any question. The
> charter (§ 205) currently allows the mayor to fully participate in
> discussions, which is common under the "small board" version of Robert's
> Rules (and our town council qualifies as small in that way). Robert's
> Rules also generally /assume/ that the chair of a meeting is a full
> member of the council, but that as chair they choose to /refrain/ from
> voting unless their vote will make a difference, and /refrain/ from
> participating in discussions unless they feel that it is vitally
> important (and, under the "large assembly" rules they are required to
> hand off chairing the meeting to another member until the question on
> which they comment is decided). There are a lot of layers to Robert's
> Rules, and a knowledgeable council will be able, easily, to check the
> power of a mayor with a strong personality, assuming that a majority of
> the council disagrees with the mayor.
>
> Finally, I don't think there will be a significant budget impact - under
> the legislation there will be a Town Manager, but no Town Administrator.
> I don't think the salary difference between the two should be more than 10%.
>
> Bob, please let me know if I have missed answering your questions
> (re-sending, just to me, any messages that have unanswered questions is
> fine). I've tried to address all of them that I've seen but I may have
> missed something and want to be sure you get the answers you want.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:52 PM, bob smith <sfmc68 at verizon.net
> <mailto:sfmc68 at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> Councilman,
> Thank you. You have hit on a number of my concerns very concisely.
> You understand my questions about the larger picture. Excellent.
>
> I am hoping the rest of my questions in the last exchanges will be
> answered and the background thinking explained in the manner that you
> have taken the time to accomplish.
>
> I don't know the thinking of the entire council on the need for a CEO
> and the budget impact immediately and over time. I am hoping they will
> share that information with the town in detail.
>
> Again, thank you for responding with what you are aware of and clearly
> stating that you have a mixed opinion - I think with more detail maybe I
> can get to one side or the other of the issue.
>
> Respectfully
> bob smith
> ward 3
>
>
>
> On 3/8/16 5:52 PM, Jonathan Ebbeler wrote:
> > Bob –
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a much longer response planned but will likely break it out in
> > more readable sections.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a mixed opinion about the change in government. In general
> > terms, this is the preferred model that most town administrators
> want –
> > i.e. to move to a Council-Manager form of government. The
> > ‘professional’ gets to make staffing calls, budget preparation
> etc. Ask
> > anyone who has been to our budget hearings – very little is actually
> > changed between the draft budget and the final budget. The fights are
> > usually around staff additions since they have tremendous impacts
> to our
> > current and more importantly future budgets (we have a very rich
> pension
> > benefit but very unfunded pension liability).
> >
> >
> >
> > In theory a town manager would be above the fray to administer the
> > direction of the town and the Council’s primary role would be to
> > administer policy. A major critique of this form of government is
> that
> > the manager is expected to understand intrinsically the needs,
> wants of
> > a community they most likely will not live in. Managers have no
> direct
> > accountability to the voters and more importantly it is often
> difficult
> > to obtain policy leadership with a Council-manager form of government.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is lost significantly is the lack of any real employee-employer
> > relationship which is my mind is a significant check and balance of
> > power. Currently the town administrator reports to the mayor and has
> > direct accountability from an operational level to that position. If
> > you or anyone in town has an issue with say trash collection you can
> > call your Councilmember and/or the Mayor and there is a direct
> > accountability and a constituent service provided.
> >
> >
> >
> > When contemplating this form of government you have to ask yourself if
> > it would also make sense to go to an at-large Council rather than
> wards
> > if we are going to remove the system of checks and balances. More to
> > the point perhaps a mayor shouldn’t be elected as a seat but
> determined
> > by the most number of votes. If we are going to discuss a decrease in
> > responsibility than of course it is only fair to taxpayers to decrease
> > Council/Mayor salaries commensurately as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > It also moves a mayor into a position where they get to vote and
> debate
> > vs. what is required by Roberts Rules of Order currently (an impartial
> > chair). So imagine a situation (hypothetically of course) where there
> > was significant policy disagreement between the Mayor and another
> > Councilmember. Currently the Mayor is required by our rules to
> stay out
> > of the discussion and only votes in a tie. Going forward it isn’t
> hard
> > to imagine some strong personalities running for seats on Council that
> > may have a difference of opinion that will unlikely lead to a
> harmonious
> > experience for the rest of the Council. It is difficult enough to
> find
> > a policy direction with 6 people. Sometimes more isn’t
> necessarily better
> >
> >
> >
> > A fundamental question I have is what is so broken that the
> Council now
> > feels this is the only path forward? I have seen justifications of
> that
> > we are growing as a town etc. Understood and agree but that doesn’t
> > define the need in any quantitative form or fashion. A system of
> > governance does not in of itself solve problems nor does trying to
> hire
> > your way out of. I would like to understand what problem it is
> exactly
> > we are trying to solve.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan W. Ebbeler
> >
> > Councilman, Ward 1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TownTalk mailing list
> > To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>
> > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org> is for automated
> subscription processing only
> > http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
> >
> > For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org> is for automated
> subscription processing only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
>
>
More information about the TownTalk
mailing list